Keywords
lexical search
structural localization
coding agents
context budgets
evidence provenance
Abstract
Repository retrieval determines which evidence a coding agent can inspect before it proposes an explanation, a test, or a patch. Graph expansion can recover structurally related code that a literal search misses, but it also introduces choices about entry points, relation types, confidence, and context budgets. This conceptual analysis develops an evaluation framework around LARGER's lexically anchored retrieval design. The framework distinguishes finding a relevant file, presenting a useful code span, and supporting a successful downstream action. It treats a graph path as a traceable selection rationale rather than proof that every retrieved neighbor matters. Proposed comparisons hold repository versions and resource budgets fixed, preserve the provenance of each selected item, and evaluate omission as well as excess context. Calibration and abstention are connected to explicitly defined retrieval events. The article contributes a research agenda and reporting specification; it does not reproduce LARGER's benchmarks, train a graph model, or measure a new coding-agent success rate.
References
Hu, Yuntong, et al. "LARGER: Lexically Anchored Repository Graph Exploration and Retrieval." arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.16352 (2026).
Robertson, Stephen, and Hugo Zaragoza. "The Probabilistic Relevance Framework: BM25 and Beyond." Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, vol. 3, no. 4, 2009, pp. 333-389. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000019.
Thakur, Nandan, et al. "BEIR: A Heterogeneous Benchmark for Zero-Shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, 2021, pp. 5370-5382. https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08663.
Hamilton, William L., Rex Ying, and Jure Leskovec. "Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02216.
Lewis, Patrick, et al. “Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 9459–9474. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401.
Guo, Chuan, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. “On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks.” Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, vol. 70, 2017, pp. 1321–1330. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/guo17a.html.
Geifman, Yonatan, and Ran El-Yaniv. “Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networks.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.08500.
Sculley, D., et al. "Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 28, 2015. https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2015/hash/86df7dcfd896fcaf2674f757a2463eba-Abstract.html
Wilkinson, Mark D., et al. "The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship." Scientific Data, vol. 3, 2016, article 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.
Jimenez, Carlos E., et al. "SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?" International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06770.